People v. Yanez CA5

── People v. Yanez CA5 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 15, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/15/26 P. v. Yanez CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THE PEOPLE, F089088 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. BF193772A) v. STEVEN ANDREW YANEZ, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. David R. Zulfa, Judge. Ashwini Mate, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Kimberley A. Donohue, Assistant Attorney General, Amanda D. Cary and Caitlin Franzen, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo- INTRODUCTION In 2021, appellant Steven Andrew Yanez got into a dispute and physical altercation with two clerks inside a Bakersfield market that also resulted in Yanez causing more than $400 worth of damage to the store. In 2024, a jury convicted Yanez of felony vandalism (Pen. Code,1 § 594, subds. (a)(2) & (b)(1)) and two counts of misdemeanor assault. (§ 240). In doing so, the jury acquitted Yanez of two counts of assault with a deadly weapon against the two clerks (Counts 1 and 2; § 245, subd. (a)(1)),2 as well as a separate single count of assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury against one of them (Count 3; § 245, subd. (a)(4)). Instead, the jury returned two simple assault verdicts as lesser included offenses of Counts 1 and 3. The first conviction was based on the “stick” assault on the first clerk alleged in Count 1. The second involved the force likely count charged in Count 3, and was based on Yanez punching the first clerk in the face during the brouhaha. Yanez was entirely acquitted of assaulting the second clerk. The trial court imposed an upper–term three–year sentence on the felony vandalism conviction, and doubled it to six years based on a strike prior the jury also found true. (See § 667, subd. (e).) For the two misdemeanors, the court imposed a concurrent statutory maximum of six months on the first conviction (§ 241, subd. (a)), and another six months on the second misdemeanor which was stayed under section 654. Yanez raises two claims on appeal: (1) The misdemeanor assault convictions must be reversed because the statute of limitations for the two 2021 offenses had lapsed prior to the 2024 convictions; and (2) The sentence on the felony vandalism conviction was unlawful because it was based in part on four aggravating sentencing factors that Yanez had neither admitted nor waived his right to a jury trial. 1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 The prosecution’s alleged deadly weapon was a “wooden stick,” an approximately three foot long, one inch by one inch piece of wood. (See Defense Exhibit F.) 2.  The People respond that Yanez’s statute of limitations claim was forfeited by his acquiescence in the trial court’s jury instruction on misdemeanor assault as a lesser included offense of the felony assault counts. They concede that the sentence on the vandalism conviction must be reversed and remanded because Yan